I think it would help if everyone tried using their own product through accessibility-tools from time to time.
I think it would help if everyone tried using their own product through accessibility-tools from time to time.
Thank you for carrying out testing. I should note that, unlike the probable majority of HN readers, MacOS and Linux are nowhere near as popular among blind users as Windows. MacOS has a decent market share (around 10-12 percent or so), but the number of screen reader users on Linux is almost insignificant.
https://bbc.github.io/accessibility-news-and-you/accessibili...
Microsoft has documentation on the built-in Narrator: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/17173/windows-10-he...
Apple has docs about VoiceOver on iOS and macOS: https://help.apple.com/voiceover/info/guide/
On Windows, JAWS[1] and NVDA[2] are the most popular, the latter of which is open source. On MacOS, the only choice for GUIs is VoiceOver[3].
[1] https://www.freedomscientific.com/products/software/jaws/ [2] https://www.nvaccess.org [3] https://www.apple.com/voiceover/info/guide/_1121.html
Although it is common for people to refer to vim as a command-line program, edbrowse is a command-line program in a stricter sense: the user types a line of text, then hits return, then the computer prints zero or more lines of text, then the user types a line of text, etc. (vim is a rewrite of an earlier program named vi, which is short for "visual", a name chosen to emphasize the fact that it departs from the strictly line-oriented interface of earlier Unix editors.)
I beg you, please don't test your website for accessibility by using edbrowse.
For sure. If your website does work in edbrowse, it may imply that you have a decent chance of making it accessible because it doesn't use a ton of dynamic interactions or page updates etc. But it doesn't guarantee it. You could still have issues with heading hierarchy, communication of control state and other factors. In some cases, edbrowse may even lull someone into a false sense of security, because it simply can't present certain aspects of your page. But when displayed in a mainstream browser, they may be inaccessible.
In a nutshell, it's unlikely that you can draw any meaningful conclusions after testing with edbrowse, be they about the accessibility of the page or the typical experience of a blind user on the web.
I can see your point because for many years I used cd, ls, mv, etc, to do all my file management and all of my browsing around my local file system. When I switched to software (Emacs's Dired subsystem) that let me specify the file to be acted upon without my needing to type the name of the file, it was a distinct improvement. (I usually use the page-up and page-down keys to find the page containing the file name I want, then use the mouse to specify the file.)
Thanks for your reply.
By far the easiest screen reader to test with is Microsoft Narrator because it is included with windows.